Being Right Vs. Being Loving

I watched a show last night called ‘God Only Knows’ which was basically a week long house swapping of a very conservative married Christian person with a gay pastor and his spouse. What stood out in the program was how the conservative person had to ‘be right’ and was extremely highlighted when he and his wife argue about this homosexuality as a sin idea – unto the point of threats of divorce. It got worked out but the point was made – is it better to ‘feel right’ versus ‘being loving’.

Now the conservative person was loving – don’t get me wrong – but he was a contradiction of sorts. He was adamantly against homosexual marriage – and saw it is a ‘sin – but yet overlooked that belief for the sake of harmony/unity with this gay couple. As much as he held to a somewhat definitive ideal (gay is a sin) he didn’t actually live like that (called them close friends). In essence, his beliefs meant nothing in my opinion – he loved over and above his view of this ‘sin’.

Which leads me to think – this conservative guy was more loving than his concern for ‘being right’. In actuality, his being right was more for ‘show’ than for any real aspect of his belief system. I could admire the guy because he let love rule versus his personal judgment. I think the guy is actually living a lie when you think about it…his being right was all ‘talk’ and all the while he held to the belief – he lived contrary to it when faced with people that are gay (either that or he was a huge hypocrite – which is also like ‘living a lie’).

So what do you think – is it more important to be ‘right’ about your faith or to be ‘loving’ about your faith? I know there should be a balance (we all have to affirm our beliefs as accurate) – but if faced with something that challenges your belief system – which road do you take – the one less traveled (love irregardless) or the one more trodden (be right to exclusion of others)?

I don’t see the “versus” there either, Jason. I believe homosexuality is a sin but I’d only be a hypocrite to browbeat a gay person for their sin. I’m a big sinner myself. It is not contradictory nor does it mean I don’t care about what the Bible says if I believe homosexuality is a sin yet I love homosexuals. I have had the pleasure of meeting too many wonderful souls who inhabit bodies of homosexuals to believe that their lives begin and end with their sexuality. They are so much more than that!

There are activist gays who try to link approval of homosexuality to love (Remember that Flycandler dude whose M.O. is exactly that: opposing same-sex marriage equals hate). The idea that we can’t love gays if we don’t approve of their sexuality is false. I didn’t see the show, but the so-called conservative guy was being an authentic Christian in my opinion. Regards.

I watched the same program last night. I’m kind of upset with myself for not recording it. I thought it made some very interesting points and I felt sympathy for the conservative guy, because there was no way that he was going to come out looking good no matter what he did.

As far as the question goes, not that I want to be disagreeable or skirt the question, but I think being able to maintain a relationship trumps either being right or being loving.

Having to be right, or being right, sometimes has the effect of pushing people away. As I used to tell people “What’s so good about being right anyways?”, if it means that you push away people that you care about. Having to be right all time means you will end up losing your audience. Because who wants to hang out with person who think they are right all the time.

But then being loving, depending on how you define loving, can sometimes allow someone you care about to walk all over you. It keeps a person from setting limits and defining boundaries. Go ahead do whatever you want, I love you anyways, type of thinking does not sit well with me. I do not see that as being loving at all. Love means you truly care about someone’s else’s well being, even if it means risking relationship for the sake of being right.

I guess, if you can, you would want to have both at the same time. Being right and being loving, while maintaining the relationship.

“I’m not sure I see a contradiction between those alternatives. The best way to be “right” is to be “loving” (Mystical)

I agree – I think there has to be some balance in the being right and loving – since that makes sense.

For me, what does not make sense is why being right was such a huge issue for this person (ie: his marriage faced a rocky test due to the gay issue and his wife empathizing with the gay person). I mean, how important can being right truly be in this case? The guy, at the end of it all, still felt the gay couple were in ‘sin’ – and really made little to no attempt to truly help them and that ‘sin’. Which makes me wonder – what sin was there then to be ‘right’ about?

I see the conservative person as betraying that fact since he made the claim homosexuality is a sin – and yet did nothing. For example, if I knew my friend was cheating on his wife (ie: adultery as a sin) – I would ask him questions to get to the point of making things right again. In this case with the gay people, nothing happened and yet the conservative person held to the belief he ‘was still right’. I don’t think it can co-exist – even if he says he cares for them. In one sense – he has to be either lying to himself or making concessions for sinful behavior – which is not dealing with the situation at all.

I mean, I think being right and being loving are by no means exclusive or opposites – but in this case – and in all rationality – this person was compassionate and did not hold to his beliefs as he claimed they existed…I think he is towing a line more or less and not really that concerned with homosexuality as a sin at all (since he behaved like it was not a sin).

” the one less traveled (love irregardless) or the one more trodden (be right to exclusion of others)?” -SVS

(I didn’t watch the show, but I wish I did.) I guess life isn’t so black and white, it is not either love or being right. Each relationship has to be treated differently. I love Tina, but much differently that I love my son. ( I treat Tina as an equal, I treat David as someone who needs guidance) I love my brothers much differently than I love mom. (I debate my brothers, I give mom the benefit of the doubt and I do not correct her when she mis-speaks)

I agree that “The best way to be “right” is to be “loving” That is what is important.

Lastly, who cares what sexual acts people commit behind closed doors, and who they do it with? That is a private thing. I get that it is not everyones cup of tea, but who I have sex with doesn’t change whether or not I am a moral person. Just like being a christian doesn’t make someone more moral than another. Its the fruit on the tree thing. The fact that they had this show means that homosexuality is still considered a crime or sin in the majorities eyes. Now I am going to get super conservative, not a position I like to take :). Sex shouldn’t be discussed in public. (There I said it, whew) If homosexuality is your choice, then fine, be that. If you’re a heterosexual then fine, be that. If you are into kink or bondage or masturbation, then fine, do it in the privacy of your home. Don’t flaunt it everywhere. Our culture is too worried about what people do behind closed doors. Why?

I think the only reason why is because someone thinks that G-d will judge everyone on the secret things. If that is true, then G-d will judge, not us and not public opinion.

This irrational witch hunt for sex is going to get worse and lead to other things. Soon you won’t be able to smoke in your own home, or drink or do a anything considered bad in your own home, because of public opinion.

Then we will have Smoker parades and everyone will dress up as cigarettes and smoke until the skies are a hazy blue.

(Incidently, when they have a non-smoking, heterosexual, non religious parade, then sign me up, I can’t wait!)

“I’m a big sinner myself. It is not contradictory nor does it mean I don’t care about what the Bible says if I believe homosexuality is a sin yet I love homosexuals.” (Jim)

I used to hold to this position for quite some time – even up to as recent as a year ago. The idea of dislike the sin – love the sinner…or that being gay was a sin. I don’t hold to that posiiton anymore because I found I was being hypocritcal in the holding of it.

It’s funny we can say ‘well we are all sinners’ to rationalize calling gay people sinners – and then they get the spotlight shined on them irregardless while our sinful selves fade into the background. That conservatice person on the show almost broke off his marriage over this issue (and has to have his wife agree with him on this point) – which for me – is vastly more sinful then someone being gay – and yet that aspect of the show was considered ‘normal behavior’. It seems Christians want to shine some spotlight on the gay community a little harder than they do on their own community.

The idea is hypocritical in the sense we call it a ‘sin’ but name the actual immorality derived from being ‘gay’? The person in the show was a gay Christian pastor – now all things considered – what was his ‘sin’ (action) that comes from choosing or being born ‘gay’? I am not sure there is a ‘sin’ inherent in being gay – some immorality they need to be ‘saved’ from. Maybe there is – and if there is – someone let me know.

Another problem is if there is a ‘sin’ being committed – that they need help with – the conservative person in the show did nothing to help alleviate their ‘burden’. I say if a sin is sin we will know by the outcome – ie: cheating usually hurts the spouse – and there is a situation to clean up/repent from/take responsibility for. In the gay issue – what seems to be the problem exactly – the situation that needs to be cleaned up?

I am not sure it is okay to call homosexuality a sin if we cannot back up our points as to why it is and what the outcomes of it are.

This is what I’ve been talking about with grace over at our blog. The conservative couple (assuming here) may have believed that homosexuality was a sin, but an understanding of their own sinfulness gives them a humility that allows them to treat others with love and respect. Legalism ends with either despair or pride, there is no in between. Apart from an understanding of the sin in our lives and God’s corresponding forgiveness/mercy/grace, we would NEVER be able to love others to the degree that we are called, whatever your motivation may be.

One issue I have is, that of, how “christians” choose to read their scripture. I am not a biblical scholar, but I am hard pressed to find any scripture that is actually talking about “Homosexuality”. The examples usually used seem to be more about Idolatry, pederasty, prostitution and rape. I think maybe people need to just be more loving and supportive of each other, rather than finding out what their so called “Sins” are. Also, I know for myself, it takes a lot of energy just having to deal with the “man in the Mirror’. 😉

Legalism ends with either despair or pride, there is no in between. Apart from an understanding of the sin in our lives and God’s corresponding forgiveness/mercy/grace, we would NEVER be able to love others to the degree that we are called, whatever your motivation may be.

Brad, keep repeating the same thing often enough in hopes that people will just accept what you say as true? Propaganda 101?

I live my life following the mitzvot. Why should that make me despair? I find it a very wonderful and meaningful way to live life. It actually does the opposite for me, leading me away from despair. On the flip side, why should following mitzvot make me proud? For such I was created. Big deal.

I live in a community that follows the mitzvot. They’re not all either despairing or filled with pride either. So, perhaps you can point out to me all the despairing, prideful people to whom you refer because I’m not seeing them.

Christians are no more loving than the next person. Fixating on sin does not make people loving. Realizing that people are just people regardless of their personal beliefs allows us to love others. In Torah love is not some emotion. Love is action, caring for the widow, the orphan, the poor, the stranger. Love is working for a just society.

Where in Torah are we taught that only those who have ‘a proper view of sin and Jesus’ are capable of loving? Doesn’t Torah instead just expect us to do right, regardless of what we might ‘feel’ about anything?

Perhaps you could back up your statements with some statistics. A higher percentage of Jews who live their lives by mitzvot commit suicide than do Christians who believe in Jesus? More Jews are prideful of keeping Torah than Christians are prideful of having all the answers for the whole world?

BTW, I’m still waiting for your answers to my questions on the previous thread of where does the Torah teach perfection in keeping the law is required, and what reward it is you think I’m expecting for following mitzvot. You made some very sweeping statements on that thread as well, again dismissing everyone who doesn’t toe your line as defective in comparison to you. Personally, I don’t find that very ‘loving’ for you to make accusations about my motives for keeping mitzvot and then take off like that.

John T,
So stop spending all your energy on the man in the mirror and go do something to make the world better. Then perhaps as you become too busy to stare at him all the time you’ll start to realize he’s not so bad looking afterall and that even if he’s not perfection personified, although he might well be, no one really cares because they appreciate that he’s a good guy who goes to the plate for his friends, neighbors, and those ‘others’ that are so easily dismissed by the mirror gazers. 😉

“Legalism ends with either despair or pride, there is no in between.” (Brad)

That’s an interesting statement because the one’s holding onto legalities in this scenario is the conservative couple and not the gay couple. Would you say the conservative couple has slipped into depair or pride on this issue?

I am not sure this has much to do anything with grace – my opinion – but with spotlighting what is the ‘sin of the day’ in our society. Something I am not even sure is a sin per se. I will re-ittirate my point of this blog with an example.

If I know someone that is cheating on his wife (ie: adultery) then I can see the obvious sinful behavior associated and conseqences of the actions (people hurt and a family possibly ruined). I can easily call that a ‘sinful behavior’ because I can see how it it ruins relationship and destroys humanity. So, I go about my best efforts to support my friend and the couple to see them deal with the problem effectively…hopefully there is room for forgiveness and repentance in the whole ordeal.

I cannot say that same thing for someone that tells me they are gay. I do not see an action associated with being gay that makes it ‘sinful behavior’ by any means or measure.

That’s where the legality of this all comes in – the conservative side wants to hold to this being a sin – without any good explanation. This is coupled with the fact they will withold marriage from a gay couple also (as part of the dynamic). I ask simply, where is the sin of this sinful behavior? Am I to judge something without any evidence and go with basic hearsay to tow some Christian line?

I applaude the conservative person for shelving his personal beliefs to love the gay couple – I thought that admirable. I notice when he was confronted with living and talking gay people – his beliefs that were untested were shaken to the core. And they should of been – since the greatest teachings we have involve equality and love (even would say those sum up all a Christian is required to do).

Plus it is hypocritical to take the stand of pointing out ‘their sin’ while knowing you yourself are also a ‘sinner’…that’s the proverbial kettle calling the pot black. I, however, am not sure that is even a logical stance to take – cause what gives us the right to speak into anyone’s life if this is the case?

Maybe I am wrong – maybe the path is we are sinners and this gives us the right to call other’s out on their sins?

“I think maybe people need to just be more loving and supportive of each other, rather than finding out what their so called “Sins” are” (John)

Relationally I agree to that point 100% – I think we are to love people where they are at in life. I, however, do see the room for speaking into someone’s life if we see they are doing something harmful to themselves or others…it would be a little irrepsonsible to say nothing when we know we might be able to help somehow. But we shouldn’t feel bad about wanting to help (someone struggling with a sin) – it should bring us closer in some way. I don;t think calling out someone’s sin really does that – when we are not willing to help carry the burden also.

“I, however, do see the room for speaking into someone’s life if we see they are doing something harmful to themselves or others…it would be a little irrepsonsible to say nothing when we know we might be able to help somehow.” (Societyvs)

Theres an old saying, Japanese I believe. Its says “Dont teach until youre asked” . Where do you think we should draw the line with our advice?

“I am not sure it is okay to call homosexuality a sin if we cannot back up our points as to why it is and what the outcomes of it are.” SVS

Agreed, what someone does in the private life between two consenting people is none of our business.

” from choosing or being born ‘gay’” – SVS

I have problems with the biological argument that we are born: ____ insert characteristic/behavior here.

We are not born gay or straight or loving kink and bondage. I think those are choices we make early or late in life, but choices none the less. I understand that testosterone may help with our decision, but it is not determinant.

I cannot say for certain – each situation has to be weighed individually and on it’s own merit. Sometimes we can say a lot to someone (receptive) and sometimes we can say next to nothing (not open to it). I have seen all these scenario’s in my life – and I try to help where and when I can – but I respect people’s decisions to not want to the advice also. Sometimes the best thing is to be there for the person irregardless.

The nature of my work in the past 20 years has provided me with the opportunity to interact with a number of gay people.

I have seen and have spoken with both the born gay individual and the gay by choice individual. At one time I would have thought that it was all choice and biology had nothing to do with it, but that is something I no longer believe.

Being born gay is a bit of a misnomer, I think that is just an easier way of explaining the lifestyle and the biological characteristics. Because, for the most part sexual attraction takes place in our early teen years. Boys and girls can play together and are pretty much innocent in their interactions with one another, up until hormones become active and then they begin noticing one another in a different manner. I have not had this discussion with any of my gay acquaintances, but I would suspect that the hormone changes in the early teen years would have an impact on their sexuality. Since the hormones are something a person is born with, its probably just easier to make the statement “born gay” to explain all the inner workings of individual.

In actuality the gay people I talk to very rarely ever talk about sexuality or sexual attraction. Being gay is not about the sexual attraction, that is one only a piece of the puzzle, the people I have spoken tell me its a lifestyle or a “way of life”.

The two “gay by choice” individuals I met were both female. They used to attend a healing circle for sexual abuse that I facilitated. Both had been sexually abused by a number of men and so by choice they became lesbian, since men were too abusive.

The real choice is in whether or not we choose to have sex and who we have sex with. That we can control.

“I dont think you have a choice when your biology decides which your attracted to.” John T
“The real choice is in whether or not we choose to have sex and who we have sex with. That we can control.” the just 1

I agree when a person’s biology predispose a person to be mentally challenged. This is proven. But I do not agree about a personal sexual preference. The studies are are too much in the infancy to say that biology predisposes a person to hetero or homo-sexuality.

What about people who practise pedofilia, necrofilia, beastility and all types of kink. Are they also predisposed? (I can’t wait to see the beastility pride parade :))

Back to my point, Then we are locking up people who are not criminals but are slaves to their genes.

“You can make choices whether you have sex with the same or opposite.” – John T

This is true. I think we choose everyday. conscious or unconscious. I am a heterosexual man, not by birth, but by choice. If someone is a homosexual. More power to them. I have no problem with that. In “Chasing Amy” The lesbian character says
“Until I remembered why I opened the door to women in the first place: to not limit the likelihood of finding that one person who’d complement me so completely.”

I think more poeple are gay than we think. I have found some pretty close guy friends. I never slept with them, but the intimacy is great. Love knows no gender and think that is what is important.

What about people who practise pedofilia, necrofilia, beastility and all types of kink. Are they also predisposed? (I can’t wait to see the beastility pride parade :))
“Back to my point, Then we are locking up people who are not criminals but are slaves to their genes.”

Wow. what a leap this statement was. None of those examples are about consenting adult individuals. Kids, dead people and animals dont count as far as choices in sexual partners. At least not from a functional standpoint. They may be predisposed but they have no basis in Love. The reason being the one they are attracted to has no say in the matter.

**but if faced with something that challenges your belief system – which road do you take – the one less traveled (love irregardless) or the one more trodden (be right to exclusion of others)?**

I try to take the road less traveled, but isn’t always easy. Sometimes, being right is very satisfying. 🙂

But what I’m seeing is that you are using “right” in the sense of judgement. It’s the difference between telling someone they haven’t experienced God’s full love/grace/compassion because they aren’t a certain “type” of person — that’s someone who must be right, regardless of the cost. It can be contrasted with someone who wants to hear how another has experienced God, even if that person is another “type.” Such as a Christian wanting to hear a Muslim’s experience, and vice versa. The former idea seems to make one less likely to listen.

I agree. I guess I took the leap because if we are just talking about sex, then there are a lot of different kinds of sex. Love is something totally different. If two people (doesn’t matter there gender) are in love. We should all celebrate that and not be so concerned what they do behind closed doors.

Why is the christianity (and most other religions, not all but most) so concerned what people do in the privacy of their own homes?

“Brad, keep repeating the same thing often enough in hopes that people will just accept what you say as true? Propaganda 101?”

“Personally, I don’t find that very ‘loving’ for you to make accusations about my motives for keeping mitzvot and then take off like that.”

I’m sorry… I must have missed the part where you engaged my points apart from your own broad sweeping generalizations. Also, maybe you’d like to put the effort into clicking on one of the several recent posts I wrote on the topic where I did significantly more than “repeat the same old thing.”

Also, I am talking about legalism, which is attempting to justify oneself before God by following a set of rules/laws/morals. If you aren’t doing that, then why are you even responding to my critique of legalism? If you do not believe that you must follow those laws perfectly, then (to whatever degree) you are depending on God’s grace… are you not? I’m not sure what you are reacting to, but it is not me.

Yael, you and I have continued to miss each other in these discussions, and I would like to once again reiterate that I am speaking from a Christian perspective that has a deep theological appreciation for orthodox Judaism. Your (tradition? denomination? perspective?) of Judaism is significantly different. I neither know enough about your tradition to critique it constructively, nor do I believe it would make a difference anyway. So if it is all the same to you, I’d rather avoid an argument on a topic that has little to no overlap.

I do not take you for a fool and would appreciate the same benefit of the doubt. For one who so follows the teachings of God, it has elicited little more than a sarcastic tone and apparent disrespect for those who disagree with you (or at least that is my experience).

Societyvs said..I used to hold to this position for quite some time – even up to as recent as a year ago. The idea of dislike the sin – love the sinner…or that being gay was a sin. I don’t hold to that posiiton anymore because I found I was being hypocritcal in the holding of it.

I see a disconnect between the above and below adjoining paragraphs.

svs…It’s funny we can say ‘well we are all sinners’ to rationalize calling gay people sinners – and then they get the spotlight shined on them irregardless while our sinful selves fade into the background.

First, I don’t see the explanation for why you were “hypocritical” before. Do you mean to say you were wrong? Are we NOT all sinners? I don’t follow what you’re saying.

svs…That conservatice person on the show almost broke off his marriage over this issue

I didn’t see the show, but I agree getting upset over someone being gay is hypocritical. Maybe that was your point. Self-righteous anger is sinful.

svs… It seems Christians want to shine some spotlight on the gay community a little harder than they do on their own community.

There are some exceptions but the rule is that most Christians are fairly laid back on this. A serious Christian understands the Lord’s words in Matthew 7:1-2, the harsher you judge others, the harsher you will be judged.

svs…The idea is hypocritical in the sense we call it a ‘sin’ but name the actual immorality derived from being ‘gay’?

Again, it sounds like you’re flurting with saying it is not a sinful behavior, that God wants some folks to have sex in that way.

svs…The person in the show was a gay Christian pastor – now all things considered – what was his ‘sin’ (action) that comes from choosing or being born ‘gay’?

Big black hole there, Jason. Did they choose or were they born that way? If they were born that way, then they can’t help who they are. I believe that’s rubbish, as does the Bible. If they chose to be gay, why should we endorse their decision? Your sentence needs rephrasing.

svs…I am not sure there is a ‘sin’ inherent in being gay – some immorality they need to be ‘saved’ from. Maybe there is – and if there is – someone let me know.

So, you are undecided, aggressively undecided I might add, and you want someone to convince you. I can’t convince you. I recommend you try homosexual sex and let US know what you think about it. 🙂 While you’re at it, make a list of positive things that it produces: happiness, health, children, fulfilment – you know, things like that.

I do love gay people – I am surrounded by them. But I would never be gay, not just because I am not attracted to men, but because I can’t believe the Creator of life would want me to be gay. It adds nothing to the continuation of that life and His Word unequivocally forbids it.

Again, it’s not for us to “do something” about, but neither should we jump into the Gay Pride parade dressed as Liz Taylor. 🙂 Cheers, brother.

“That’s an interesting statement because the one’s holding onto legalities in this scenario is the conservative couple and not the gay couple. Would you say the conservative couple has slipped into depair or pride on this issue?”

It is ENTIRELY possible, as legalism is far more common in conservative circles in the first place. Having not seen the movie/episode, I can’t say for certain.

“I am not sure this has much to do anything with grace – my opinion – but with spotlighting what is the ’sin of the day’ in our society.”

It is related (sorry I didn’t explain much) because grace gives us the ability to live without despair, and stems from our great need for it (sin) which leads us to humility. In God’s grace, we may have a “humble confidence” (Tim Keller).

“I cannot say that same thing for someone that tells me they are gay. I do not see an action associated with being gay that makes it ’sinful behavior’ by any means or measure.”

That’s because you are defining sin differently than the Bible does. Kierkegaard helpfully describes sin is centering yourself on anything over and above God. It is where you find your identity. Some things people choose to center on absolutely harm others, but some may not. If you are single without a family, finding your identity in your job may not hurt anyone else, but it is still sinful…. and even then, I would argue that it very much pains God.

“Plus it is hypocritical to take the stand of pointing out ‘their sin’ while knowing you yourself are also a ’sinner’…that’s the proverbial kettle calling the pot black. I, however, am not sure that is even a logical stance to take – cause what gives us the right to speak into anyone’s life if this is the case?”

Bingo! And the answer to your question is community. This is why it is absolutely necessary to be surrounded by friends and family who can speak truth with love into your life, holding you accountable and helping you in need. We are not to judge those outside the church for the reason you mention, but are absolutely called to hold other believers accountable (1 Corinthians 5: 9- 13).

are we actually debating on whether or not being LGBT is a choice or not?! shocking…

let’s review: In the last 15 years, researchers (particularly Wayne Bensen the loudest voice to contend that being gay is genetic and biological, NOT a choice) have discovered differences in brain anatomy between gay and straight men —and found that the 6 percent of rams that have sex exclusively with other rams (just one of hundreds of species in which homosexual behavior has been observed, others include dolphins, doves, opposoms etc.) have a similar neuroanatomical difference; identified a gene sequence on the X chromosome that is common to many gay men; traced genealogies to show that homosexuality runs in families, on the maternal side; proved that a man’s likelihood of being gay increases with the number of older brothers he has, which scientists attribute to changes in intrauterine chemistry; and learned how to use magnetic resonance imaging to detect sexual orientation by watching the brain’s response to pornography. These findings all seem to support Besen’s contention that being gay is essentially biological and should remain beyond the reach of law, morals, or medicine.

however, the notion that if something is biological, it is fixed—no biologist on the planet would make that sort of assumption… so i would contend that there is some plasticity to sexuality… ala Kinsey Scale. but i stop short of saying that there’s ALOT of flexiblity there. the scale goes like this 1 is complete hetero and 6 is complete homo in desire, one will not fluxuate between a 1 to a 6 and vice versa. i’d say that there’s a two point variance in the scale, and that’s not much.

“differences in brain anatomy between gay and straight men ”
I am not entirely convinced by the neurological differences in human beings. The brain works partly on habitual patterns. If a person chooses x over y enough times, their neurons begin to develop a habit of picking x. So the brain patterns look like you are pre-disposed to x, when realistically y is a choice that could have easily been the choice. So I can see why brain patterns may look convincing, but they are not. It just means that person choose x more in their life. It doesn’t mean they are predisposed to x.

” 6 percent of rams that have sex exclusively with other rams”
“X chromosome that is common to many gay men”
“being gay increases with the number of older brothers he has”,

This evidenced is also not conclusive to prove homosexuality is a predisposition. Heres why? What about the females? Homosexuality is not exclusive to just men. IF it could be proven that women and ewes are also subject to the same genetics, then maybe. I also looked into Dr Dean Hamer who proposed the “gay gene” hypothesis. I think his finding are much too exagerated and are not well researched enough to make this claim.

“if something is biological, it is fixed—no biologist on the planet would make that sort of assumption”

I agree. Sorry, Luke, nothing personal, the GLBT community is awesome. I am just against bad science.

Lastly, the “Kinsey Scale” is also very biased into two sexualities, that’s like saying the world is made up of either white or black people with every other culture just in the middle. No one would agree with that assumption and neither do I about sexuality. There is not just hetero or homo-sexual. I think there are a lot of other sexualities that are not discussed and should be put on the scale. What about pedofilia, necrofilia, beastialty, kink, asexuality ? They are also sexual preferences, why are they not on the scale and predisposed? I think there has to be a lot more resesarch done before someone says that we a predisposed to certain lifestyles. Anything less is bad science.

I want to clarify something. I have used pedo, necro and other sexualities within the same context as homosexuality.I DO NOT think they are related and I do not think homosexuality or trans-gendered person are immoral. As a First Nations person, I sympathize with their cause and I support their fight for equality.

Also, if I am wrong (which is knwo to happen often) and homosexuals are predisposed, then there is still a percentage of homosexuals who choose it. And I don’t think that anyone can argue that.

I am against bad science. For example. the same Dr Dean Hamer also said there is a “God gene” which predisposed people to religion. I do not agree with this research either. So what, I was born predisposed to atheism, but along the way I became a christian and then the gene kicked in at 35 and made me an atheist like I was supposed to be? Sounds pretty idiotic to me.

” If a person chooses x over y enough times, their neurons begin to develop a habit of picking x. So the brain patterns look like you are pre-disposed to x, when realistically y is a choice that could have easily been the choice. ”

this is a behaviorist stance and i see the merit in it… what we get into however, is a chicken or egg argument with LGBT being a choice or not… is it genetic? is it chosen? if chosen enough over time, does that make it not so much of a choice? we really can’t answer it that easily as it’s incredibly complicated. but let’s flip this… why are we heterosexual?

i can’t answer that, even though i’m married and never deviated from my attraction to women. why? no idea. could it be i’m culturally programmed and my biology and neurology picked up on this and through routine made me heterosexual, sure! but how then does that include my friend who’s been a lesbian since birth and has known it the whole time? that throws a pure behaviorist model out the window, baby and bathwater and all.

see, chicken or egg argument! we’re not quite there to argue one way or another… what we do know is that there’s enough evidence that we’re not the only species to have homosexuality (or the other sexualities necrofilia, beastialty, kink, asexuality but i always hesitate to link those as my definition of sex includes consent which is lacking in the first two examples).

I think this is a great question. My girlfriend is a feminist major and she loves to challenge me with those kind of questions also.

I know I am heterosexual. But that is only one part of my sexuality. I think most people would agree that love and sex are not neccessarily the same thing, but the two are connected.

I choose heterosexual sex exclusively with my partner (She would probably say, “you better!”). I also like being emotionally and spiritually close to other men, but I have no desire to be physically intimate with a man. I am open to “gay” love, but I personally do not choose “gay” sex. If we can use those labels. (I hate labels, they never fully say what you want them to say. I am not an atheist, but I subscribe to some of their ideals. I am not a christian, but I also subscribe to some of their ideals)

Luke,
Wayne Bensen’s studies focus on one thing, practicing gay men or animals. Studying horses who’ve left the barn won’t help you predict which ones will leave the barn in the future. If Dr. Bensen can show me a baby in 2008 who he says is gay, and in 2026, without any overt societal influences, he is a gay young man, then I’d admit he was onto something. All his research comes down to the same fallacy, however; all gay men have similarities, therefore they were “born that way”. One does not lead to the other. Just thought you should know that. Rawk! 🙂

yup, see your point.. i’m waiting for that day too. it works both ways, Bensen can’t show me a baby born in ’08 who will be straight in ’26 either.. however that’s because we do not have the full genetic mapping yet to do what you propose. it is an inherent chicken or egg argument.

but speaking to myself, whose known since birth i’m 100% hetero vs. speaking to a few of my LGBT friends who’ve known the same thing (100% homo since birth), i think that genetics have something to say in this field. a pure choice it ain’t, but it’s not pure genetics either. RAWK!